Software Freedom Law Center claims proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk

[newbie2]

The report, titled "Killed by Code: Software Transparency in Implantable Medical Devices," is here. ®

This article was updated to make clear that software defects are likely the cause of one-quarter of the recalls. It was also updated to add comment from Medtronic.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/27/buggy_pacemaker_code/
:rolleyes:

[KiwiNZ]

Thread title changed to reflect the article more accurately.

[newbie2]

Thread title changed to reflect the article more accurately.
OK,but can you then add "proprietary" or "non-open" before "software" ... ? ;)

[earthpigg]

Thread title changed to reflect the article more accurately.

The subject of the thread is an article in The Register. The title of the article that is the subject of this thread is clearly "Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk".

As this is a thread about an editorial article titled "Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk", I'm not sure I see where the justification is for arbitrarily renaming it to something else based on your personal interpretation of the article.

I could see, however, the thread title being reasonably renamed to "Editorial: Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk".

Just my happy little opinion.

[earthpigg]

lol, i knew the subject of this thread sounded familiar:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=9632933&postcount=11


Medical tools ought to be developed scientifically, not as whiz-bang video games.


Peer reviewed publications and repeatable experiments. If you are confident your pacemaker is decent, then you should be willing to submit all of it's components to public & scientific scrutiny.

Lives are on the line, no time for lawyer crap.

[newbie2]

I like this one :p :

Sun Microsystems’ COO Bill Vass summed up the most common case for FOSS in a blog post published in April 2009: “By making the code open source, nothing can be hidden in the code,” Vass wrote. “If the Trojan Horse was made of glass, would the Trojans have rolled it into their city? NO.” (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2010/transparent-medical-devices.html)28

[Nick_Jinn]

The subject of the thread is an article in The Register. The title of the article that is the subject of this thread is clearly "Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk".

As this is a thread about an editorial article titled "Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk", I'm not sure I see where the justification is for arbitrarily renaming it to something else based on your personal interpretation of the article.

I could see, however, the thread title being reasonably renamed to "Editorial: Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk".

Just my happy little opinion.


I agree. Why not use the actual name of the article if you are going to rename something?
The software being proprietary is obviously an important theme here....otherwise you start to think that the OPEN SOURCE software is the problem and they are warning people about their own mistakes.

[nrs]

I think I'd definitely want something that, you know, keeps my heart beating to to be peer-reviewed.

[newbie2]

Why not use the actual name of the article if you are going to rename something?
That WAS the title of the thread ... :p

[Nick_Jinn]

That WAS the title of the thread ... :p

Thats what i am saying. If a mod is going to change the name, why not change it to the actual title...this was an odd decision.

[earthpigg]

Thats what i am saying. If a mod is going to change the name, why not change it to the actual title...this was an odd decision.

he isn't a random mod, he is the forum administrator. he has the inferred right to take certain liberties beyond that of other moderators, as the existence of every thread and post here is ultimately subject to his personal (and human) judgment.

humans are odd, so judgment calls will be odd from time to time :D

let's get back on topic:



Pacemakers running software with essentially the same development model as the latest-and-greatest video game.

Very Unnerving.





(throwing a slightly sensationalist claim out there to get things back on topic :P )

[ronnielsen1]

Thread title changed to reflect the article more accurately.
Yeah I agree. The title at the register reflects the actual contents. What it was changed to does not. Are we worried about p.o.'ing proprietary software here or what?

[Nick_Jinn]

I would change it back.

Anyway, what exactly are they afraid of? Is keeping it proprietary done for any good reason or is it just dumb habit from the foolish trends of our current society.

[earthpigg]

Anyway, what exactly are they afraid of? Is keeping it proprietary done for any good reason or is it just dumb habit from the foolish trends of our current society.

Same reasons video card drivers are kept proprietary, I would assume.

The vital difference here is this:

With video card drivers, profits & trade secrets are considered to matter more than good video game & good 3d artwork experiences.

With pacemakers, profits & trade secrets are considered to matter more than Grandpa's life.



GPU driver's really don't upset me, to be honest. I've never tried making the next great animated 3d movie, so efficient 3d rendering has never been more to me than a toy or an amusement.

I had never considered pacemakers before because I am blessed enough not to have any close friends or family on a pacemaker.

[standingwave]

lol, i knew the subject of this thread sounded familiar...They said I was crazy at the institute...

[KiwiNZ]

Thread title corrected , I meant to put in the word 'proprietary' but omitted it. My apologies.

Also my apologies for the delay, I have just woken up, time zones etc , it's early morning down under.

[Tristam Green]

At the risk of sounding political, it bothers me immensely that there exists such a thing as the "Software Freedom Law Center", a name that invokes imagery of entities like the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose issues I argue are much more damaging to humanity than the petty quibbling over proprietary and free software.

[earthpigg]

At the risk of sounding political, it bothers me immensely that there exists such a thing as the "Software Freedom Law Center", a name that invokes imagery of entities like the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose issues I argue are much more damaging to humanity than the petty quibbling over proprietary and free software.


When I stretch the analogy to the point where I'm comparing Stallman with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Stallman, after breaking off a split end and popping it into his mouth, cuts me off.

"I'm not in his league, but I do play the same game," he says, chewing.

Source. (http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch05.html)

the name is not a coincidence.

And it also may be a bit of marketing -- a name likely to attract idealistic young lawyers that aren't in it for the money.

[Tristam Green]

Source. (http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch05.html)

the name is not a coincidence.

And it also may be a bit of marketing -- a name likely to attract idealistic young lawyers that aren't in it for the money.

I submit that rms, as usual, is full of horsehockey. It's not the same game at all.

People aren't being beaten or fired upon with high-pressure firehoses or being forced to sit away from others at Starbucks because they're running Linux.

[koenn]

At the risk of sounding political, it bothers me immensely that there exists such a thing as the "Software Freedom Law Center", a name that invokes imagery of entities like the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose issues I argue are much more damaging to humanity than the petty quibbling over proprietary and free software.

I've never heard of Southern Poverty Law Center so I don't see what would bother you about the existence of a Software Freedom Law Center.

Not that it matters much. If large software corporations feel they need Legal Departments, I'd think that the free software/open source developers and distributors community might need something similar, for the same reasons. So it makes perfect sense that there exists such a thing as the "Software Freedom Law Center"

[koenn]

I submit that rms, as usual, is full of horsehockey. It's not the same game at all.

People aren't being beaten or fired upon with high-pressure firehoses or being forced to sit away from others at Starbucks because they're running Linux.

if you read a bit further in the interview earthpig linked to, you'll see that stallman actually agrees with you.


"I hesitate to exaggerate the importance of this little puddle of freedom," he says. "Because the more well-known and conventional areas of working for freedom and a better society are tremendously important. I wouldn't say that free software is as important as they are.

[ ...] to end police brutality, to end the war on drugs, to end the kinds of racism we still have, [ ...] these are tremendously important issues, far more important than what I do.

I submit that that "same game (~ social change, activism), different league" quote should be read in that perspective.

[MCVenom]

if you read a bit further in the interview earthpig linked to, you'll see that stallman actually agrees with you.



I submit that that "same game (~ social change, activism), different league" quote should be read in that perspective.
But then we wouldn't have a chance to insult Stallman! :P

[earthpigg]

what koenn said.

he acknowledges very frequently, both in his speeches and in his writings, that the FSF is a very very minor player. It just happens to be the area that personally affected him, and that he felt he could have an impact on.

he comes off to some as arrogant, but he comes off to me as rather humble. his writings and teachings are full of "i don't know" and "i wish i knew" and the like.

[wilee-nilee]

Originally Posted by Tristam Green View Post
At the risk of sounding political, it bothers me immensely that there exists such a thing as the "Software Freedom Law Center", a name that invokes imagery of entities like the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose issues I argue are much more damaging to humanity than the petty quibbling over proprietary and free software.

Am I correct to say here that your maligning the Southern Poverty Law Center. :lolflag:

[zekopeko]

But then we wouldn't have a chance to insult Stallman! :P

You don't have to look at the broader context of civil rights to find examples of Stallman being a hypocrite. Just stick to the area of he's interest (software freedom) and you can find examples of his hypocrisy.

[mickie.kext]

You don't have to look at the broader context of civil rights to find examples of Stallman being a hypocrite. Just stick to the area of he's interest (software freedom) and you can find examples of his hypocrisy.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

But anyway, show one Stallman's "hypocrisy". I would like to see.

[MCVenom]

You don't have to look at the broader context of civil rights to find examples of Stallman being a hypocrite. Just stick to the area of he's interest (software freedom) and you can find examples of his hypocrisy.
I'm not sure about hypocrisy, but he does seem a tad arrogant and sometimes woefully out of touch. :P

I honestly just think people are too hard on him sometimes. I was quite disturbed to happen upon a thread here in the cafe, talking about an interview he did. He said he to some extent regretted being born. You'd think people would show a little restraint even if they outright hated him; but the thread devolved into some of the most brutal RMS-bashing I've ever seen. It was, to put it bluntly, disgusting and I am still ashamed that it ever happened on these forums.

So yes, I see and understand your point; Richard Stallman is just a bit of a touchy subject for me. I still respect him, regardless of his transgressions, for his role in founding the GNU project.

[mickie.kext]

I honestly just think people are too hard on him sometimes.

The guy (RMS) once said:

"It looks like some people are having a discussion in which they
construct views they would find outrageous, attribute them to me, and
then try to blame me for them.

For such purposes, knowledge of my actual views might be superfluous,
even inconvenient. However, if anyone wants to know what I do think,
I've stated it in various articles in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ ."


Every time someone attacks someone for no reason, I remember this quote. But who cares what the guy actually did or said, we must bash him:rolleyes:

[zekopeko]

I'm not sure about hypocrisy, but he does seem a tad arrogant and sometimes woefully out of touch. :P

I honestly just think people are too hard on him sometimes. I was quite disturbed to happen upon a thread here in the cafe, talking about an interview he did. He said he to some extent regretted being born. You'd think people would show a little restraint even if they outright hated him; but the thread devolved into some of the most brutal RMS-bashing I've ever seen. It was, to put it bluntly, disgusting and I am still ashamed that it ever happened on these forums.

So yes, I see and understand your point; Richard Stallman is just a bit of a touchy subject for me. I still respect him, regardless of his transgressions, for his role in founding the GNU project.

I think that you nailed it. He is out of touch. He has his little laptop that is FOSS from the BIOS level and up (I think even the hardware specs are free) and he simply forgot that people out there aren't presidents of foundations and actually use computer as tools, surf the web with a web browsers and not by wget-ing the page and reading them from email.

His most known acts of trolling were because he was woefully ignorant on the subject matter.

[KiwiNZ]

They set themselves up as targets. And yes a lot of what is said about them is unjustified and wrong.

Richard Stallman has done and achieved a considerable amount and there is a lot to be admired. However there is a lot that the man does that annoys the hell out of a lot of people especially his views on Commercial Software. He does a lot of damage to the Open source sector with those radical pontifications.

[mickie.kext]

They set themselves up as targets. And yes a lot of what is said about them is unjustified and wrong.

Richard Stallman has done and achieved a considerable amount and there is a lot to be admired. However there is a lot that the man does that annoys the hell out of a lot of people especially his views on Commercial Software. He does a lot of damage to the Open source sector with those radical pontifications.

What is wrong with his views on commercial software? He said it's ok, and also said that he is proud of companies like Red Hat commercializing free software. FSF even have a page on how you should sell Free software.

I think you meant to say proprietary software (which is huge difference). He is against that and with a good reason.

[zekopeko]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Nah, I use it correctly. You simply like to ignore it because of your cognitive dissonance.


But anyway, show one Stallman's "hypocrisy". I would like to see.

Two examples pop to my mind: the trolling of BSD for their ports system. He attacked them for "suggesting" proprietary software by providing a fully FOSS system (for installing proprietary software) that pointed to outside URLs which contained proprietary software that weren't a part of the OpenBSD project.
Then somebody mentioned that his GCC project includes code that enables it to run on proprietary platform such as Windows, so in essence it is suggesting running GCC on those proprietary platforms. Haven't found a response from him.

The second one was when the whole GNU-GNOME thing was being discussed on Gnome Foundation mailing list. He said: "I would not encourage anyone to use non-free software, not even to get money to give to a worthy cause." He said that all the while being the president-for-life of FSF which received donations from such closed-source companies as Oracle, IBM, Intel, HP, Google and a number of others.

There as also the unverified anecdote that I read on reddit. Stallman was giving a speech and was saying how everything should be free; books, software etc. The second he ended the speech he pulled out the FSF merchandise and started selling it. The response from the audience was along the line of "are you ****ing serious".

So yeah he is a hypocrite in a number of areas. It generally wouldn't be a problem but since he is so preachy and demands everyone subjugate themselves to his vision of software freedom it is a big deal.

[KiwiNZ]

What is wrong with his views on commercial software? He said it's ok, and also said that he is proud of companies like Red Hat commercializing free software. FSF even have a page on how you should sell Free software.

I think you meant to say proprietary software (which is huge difference). He is against that and with a good reason.

Sorry ,yes you are right ,I meant proprietary, I slept badly last night.

Thats where I part company with him, I do not see "good reason". And the FSF etc generates a lot of bad Khama . And that really does detract from very good work that RMS did and especially early years at MIT.

[zekopeko]

They set themselves up as targets. And yes a lot of what is said about them is unjustified and wrong.

Richard Stallman has done and achieved a considerable amount and there is a lot to be admired. However there is a lot that the man does that annoys the hell out of a lot of people especially his views on Commercial Software. He does a lot of damage to the Open source sector with those radical pontifications.

I don't like to +1 but this fully deserves it.

[KiwiNZ]

@ zekopeko tone it down a bit please , remember friendly debate is the name of the game here

[zekopeko]

@ zekopeko tone it down a bit please , remember friendly debate is the name of the game here

Where was I overboard, arrrrr?

[MCVenom]

Where was I overboard, arrrrr?
While we're still horribly off-topic (I believe it was pacemakers), I'd like to put forth the suggestion that we all talk like pirates. Let's really make this interesting. ;)

[KiwiNZ]

While we're still horribly off-topic (I believe it was pacemakers), I'd like to put forth the suggestion that we all talk like pirates. Let's really make this interesting. ;)

Yes you are right we are off topic,and I am guilty of it too.

[zekopeko]

While we're still horribly off-topic (I believe it was pacemakers), I'd like to put forth the suggestion that we all talk like pirates. Let's really make this interesting. ;)

Aye, we be in agreement! I shall try me best! Yarrr!

[zekopeko]

Yes you are right we are off topic,and I am guilty of it too.

It be sweet, sweet guilt matey!

[MCVenom]

It be sweet, sweet guilt matey!
Aye! http://forum.hamletshouse.co.uk/style_emoticons/default/pirate.gif

[nrs]

The second one was when the whole GNU-GNOME thing was being discussed on Gnome Foundation mailing list. He said: "I would not encourage anyone to use non-free software, not even to get money to give to a worthy cause." He said that all the while being the president-for-life of FSF which received donations from such closed-source companies as Oracle, IBM, Intel, HP, Google and a number of others.

Did you even bother to read the quote you posted? He's not saying don't accept money, he's saying don't use proprietary software to gain money. I.e, Don't violate your ethics to save them. For it to be hypocritical he'd have to be using proprietary software to gain money. Is he?



There as also the unverified anecdote that I read on reddit. Stallman was giving a speech and was saying how everything should be free; books, software etc. The second he ended the speech he pulled out the FSF merchandise and started selling it. The response from the audience was along the line of "are you ****ing serious".

1.) unverified anecdote that contradicts a boatload of previous comments.
2.) “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.”

You don't know appear to know what you're talking about. Free has nothing to do with price.

[Nick_Jinn]

While we're still horribly off-topic (I believe it was pacemakers), I'd like to put forth the suggestion that we all talk like pirates. Let's really make this interesting. ;)

Im down.

And I definitely respect people who can admit when they are wrong, more than people who think they dont make mistakes.



You know....I think its possible to be against closing the source code for pacemaker software regardless of whether you support commercial software or proprietary software...Hell, you could be a proprietary software developer who never lets anything out, but still think that when it comes to pacemakers that there are a few products where pride and profits have to come second and peoples lives have to come first.

[phrostbyte]

I would strongly support laws that would require software to be peer reviewed in the interests of public safety.

[zekopeko]

Did you even bother to read the quote you posted? He's not saying don't accept money, he's saying don't use proprietary software to gain money. I.e, Don't violate your ethics to save them. For it to be hypocritical he'd have to be using proprietary software to gain money. Is he?

If you take his statement at face value then yes, it wouldn't be hypocritical. The problem is that he considers his cause worthy but has no problem taking money from such immoral and unethical enterprises (from his perspective). So if somebody else uses non-free software to make money to give to FSF it's all kosher from his perspective.

Would it be moral to take the money if it came from human trafficking or illegal gun sale? Remember, proprietary software is immoral from his perspective.


1.) unverified anecdote that contradicts a boatload of previous comments.

That's why I added the unverified part.


2.) “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.”

I should have expanded. It didn't deal only with virtual good but with essentially everything. Food, housing etc. i.e. tangible goods.

The problem was (as the poster explained it) that he was literally taking one minute about how everything should be free and the next he was peddling his goods for cash.


You don't know appear to know what you're talking about. Free has nothing to do with price.

I never said it was. I was simply repeating what I have read from someone that claimed was present at said lecture.
But let us ignore this please. It is an unverified account of one of his lectures and it's fair if you wish to ignore it.

I'm more interested why you ignored his trolling of BSD. You didn't comment on that.

Hmmm... we are soooooooo off-topic right now. PM me if you wish to debate more.

[Nick_Jinn]

I guess it depends on whether taking their money further contributes to their immoral activities.

I would take money from an abusive pimp, but I would still turn them in once I had their money or as soon as I found out.

[phrostbyte]

The problem was (as the poster explained it) that he was literally taking one minute about how everything should be free and the next he was peddling his goods for cash.

This shows a common but fundamental misunderstanding of "free" in the context of "free software".

[zekopeko]

This shows a common but fundamental misunderstanding of "free" in the context of "free software".

Did you miss the part where I said he (allegedly) wasn't only talking about intangible goods?

[zekopeko]

I guess it depends on whether taking their money further contributes to their immoral activities.

It does contribute further.


I would take money from an abusive pimp, but I would still turn them in once I had their money or as soon as I found out.

You just became corrupt. Taking money that you know came from an immoral activity is a form of corruption.

But anyway, could we get back on topic? Peer reviewed software for such devices as pacemakers should be legally required.

[Nick_Jinn]

I dont necessarily agree....A liquor store owner....he sells beer to a gangster. The same store sells broccoli to a nun. The store owner is corrupt because he sold beer to a paying customer? I dont agree with the idea that you adopt the sins of whoever pays you for your legitimate services,...or maybe Suse is guilty of every crime against the open source community that Microsoft ever committed.

But lets say it does contribute.....like if you sell a gun to a known criminal, or the rope knowing it will be used to tie somebody up...then yeah, you are guilty.

Sometimes "lets change the subject" just means 'let me have the last word and dont reply'. It takes two. It is relevant though. Logical progression of a thread isnt threadjacking.



Regardless of what we can take others to mean based on things they have said, I think that certain things should be open source by law....medicine should be one of them. Drugs.....You MUST disclose the chemical compound you are giving people to market a drug. You cant just invent a new drug and have 'mystery ingredient' or 'secret family recipe' on the bottle. The chemical structure and all research must be disclosed. Why should pacemakers be any different? The software is similar to a drug and should be disclosed by law.


But if you think that profits are more important than peoples lives, than you are as good as guilty of murder.

[Dustin2128]

</rms rant>

[mkendall]

I still respect him [RMS], regardless of his transgressions, for his role in founding the GNU project.

If only because it reminds me daily of this slice of wonderful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGVdCGxh1IY).

[Tristam Green]

I've never heard of Southern Poverty Law Center so I don't see what would bother you about the existence of a Software Freedom Law Center.

Not that it matters much. If large software corporations feel they need Legal Departments, I'd think that the free software/open source developers and distributors community might need something similar, for the same reasons. So it makes perfect sense that there exists such a thing as the "Software Freedom Law Center"

Whether or not you've heard of it is irrelevant. Are you arguing that because you are unaware of it, that it is actually less relevant in the worldview? Because if you are, I'd love to laugh in your face if afforded the opportunity.


Am I correct to say here that your maligning the Southern Poverty Law Center. :lolflag:

You are incorrect.

[earthpigg]

back on topic.




It is unethical to sell medical devices that have not been fully peer reviewed by scienists other than those associated with the salesman.

[Tristam Green]

back on topic.




It is unethical to sell medical devices that have not been fully peer reviewed by scienists other than those associated with the salesman.

Thanks for the in-line moderation! That's just what I needed this morning.

I'll agree with your on-topic point though; that's precisely why independent panels exist. Does that mean they need to peer review the software running those devices, though? I highly doubt it. If the device works in studies, and it works with an acceptably low failure rate, then it passes for sale.

Also, since when has ethics really been the crux of business? The ultimate goal of businesses, whether they're selling noodles or pacemakers, is to make money. If the manufacturers are making shoddy kit, then it will show and the company will fall.

In the case of pacemakers, if the company is making crappy ones, it will be sued for its worth. Thus, it's in the company's best interest to make a good product with equipment (and software) that can be relatively inexpensive (in a medical oxymoron "nothing is inexpensive" sense) but reliable.

[Nick_Jinn]

Evidence shows that the software is resulting in deaths. Maybe we should rethink inspecting the physical deigns without inspecting the software flaws.

[Tristam Green]

Evidence shows that the software is resulting in deaths. Maybe we should rethink inspecting the physical deigns without inspecting the software flaws.

At what rate though? I realize that some people have the ridiculous notion that "even 1 loss is unacceptable", but face it - imperfect human hands designed the software and equipment, so failures *will* inevitably happen. It's the percentage of failure to success that is important. If it's less than (I'll be extremely generous here) 10 percent, the generally-accepted "acceptable loss" scenario of most complex surgeries, then I'd say that the SFLC is barking up the wrong tree.

[Nick_Jinn]

If a device had a 10% failure rate I doubt it would be allowed in medicine unless there was no alternative. In the US standards are very very strict.....you pretty much have to buy somebody off to get anything pushed through in a hurry.

[Tristam Green]

If a device had a 10% failure rate I doubt it would be allowed in medicine unless there was no alternative. In the US standards are very very strict.....you pretty much have to buy somebody off to get anything pushed through in a hurry.

hence why i was saying i was being *extremely* generous with my estimates.


I don't get it. The way this thread reads, you guys are making it sound like zero defects is the only acceptable policy, and that if there is a single failure, then it shouldn't be released to market. Yet, you use Ubuntu, which increasingly has more and more flaws at release.


Peer review ftw right?

[earthpigg]

I don't get it. The way this thread reads, you guys are making it sound like zero defects is the only acceptable policy

zero defects or the company doing everything they can to reduce defects short of running themselves out of business.

i would be "kinda sorta ok" with a proprietary license that makes the source code available for all to see, but not use outside of their own hardware. Hell, dual-license (GPLv2 and Proprietary) and TiVo it to the hardware. not ideal, but it would very likely save lives.


, and that if there is a single failure, then it shouldn't be released to market. Yet, you use Ubuntu, which increasingly has more and more flaws at release.

Peer review ftw right?

I don't have a zero defect mentality. The concern is that the company is doing less than they can. They could do more without sacrificing any significant revenue.

The only reason not to make the entire source code publicly available for scrutiny is because they are concerned about black market knock-offs in the third world (black market software, and hardware that has negligible quality control). Are poor nations really a market concern for them?

They are letting folks die over a possible loss of a few percentile points of global market share. Measuring 'market share' in USD, of course, and not lives prolonged. Legitimate business in the US, EU, and Wealthy Nations of Asia are where the money is at, not Africa or the Japanese Black Medical Market.

[JDShu]

It's all about the bottom line, even for products that save lives. Making source code available would probably hit profit levels hard, kinda like allowing generic drugs to be available.

[Nick_Jinn]

Yeah, 100 deaths that were unavoidable by all foreseeable options is not 'better' than 1 preventable death....but perhaps it is as far as blame and liability. If even 1 easily preventable death occurs to turn a profit, thats manslaughter or at least wrongful death. If you are doing everything you can do and some die anyway, that is to be expected. However, I dont believe that there is an acceptable number of people that we can let die due to negligence or profit.


If there is one sector that shouldn't be run like a traditional business, it should be medicine.....perhaps they should be compensated for thier discovery and work, but it should have to get sold (rights and everything) to the public sector for it to be used in medicine....we could keep costs down and then they dont have to waste our money in advertising wars.

[JDShu]

If there is one sector that shouldn't be run like a traditional business, it should be medicine.....perhaps they should be compensated for thier discovery and work, but it should have to get sold (rights and everything) to the public sector for it to be used in medicine....we could keep costs down and then they dont have to waste our money in advertising wars.

I fully agree with you, but we have yet to get a business model that works.

[Frak]

They set themselves up as targets. And yes a lot of what is said about them is unjustified and wrong.

Richard Stallman has done and achieved a considerable amount and there is a lot to be admired. However there is a lot that the man does that annoys the hell out of a lot of people especially his views on Commercial Software. He does a lot of damage to the Open source sector with those radical pontifications.
Just to say it, he needs to spend some time away from the Gnome mailing lists. Holy crap, Icaza and Lefty got the message, it's been iterated a million times, we get it.

Kinda off topic, but absolutely true.

[koenn]

Whether or not you've heard of it is irrelevant. Are you arguing that because you are unaware of it, that it is actually less relevant in the worldview? Because if you are, I'd love to laugh in your face if afforded the opportunity.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm saying that your explanation for your dislike for (the name of) the SDLC doesn't work for people like me, who have never heard of that southern poverty thing.

I'm afraid you will have to wait for another opportunity to laugh in my face.

[Nick_Jinn]

I dont think Richard does harm to open source with his radical opinions. On the contrary, I think his positions are reasonable, and its the luke warm moderates who are weighing down the radical sect of the open source movement.....How exactly are this mans radical opinions going to turn around an harm opens source development? They are not! Its all in your head. No harm will come to open source software just because he says something you disagree with....You dont have to agree with him, but dont be going out of your way to stifle him just because you are too afraid to be associated with anything but the mainstream status quo.

Be a radical. Its good for you.

[MCVenom]

I dont think Richard does harm to open source with his radical opinions. On the contrary, I think his positions are reasonable, and its the luke warm moderates who are weighing down the radical sect of the open source movement.....How exactly are this mans radical opinions going to turn around an harm opens source development? They are not! Its all in your head. No harm will come to open source software just because he says something you disagree with....You dont have to agree with him, but dont be going out of your way to stifle him just because you are too afraid to be associated with anything but the mainstream status quo.

Be a radical. Its good for you.
There's idealism, and there's pragmatism. I'd love to say that no one needs proprietary drivers, or non-free software but that's just not true for some, Linux just isn't there yet. Richard doesn't just hate proprietary software; he believes the mere mention of it legitimizes something he chooses to see as illegitimate. Worse is that he along with others believe that one piece of free software is not equal to another; Google 'Richard Stallman Planet Gnome'.

RMS does do harm with his words; imagine starving (Linux lacking some comparable software compared to Win & Mac), having someone deliver some hot, delicious meals to you (a company considering porting it's popular poprietary software to Linux) only to have one guy stand up, yell at the guy that offered you food, saying "We don't need your food! We'll make our own from twigs and rocks!" and maybe have one or two guys agreeing with him (RMS and other 'radicals'). It just makes us all look bad; and we're more often than not beggars rather than choosers. That's just one example though.

Once again, RMS (and other 'radicals') does, I believe serve a purpose; but they more often than not are sticking their noses too far into business they shouldn't be.

On that note, I'd take him over Schestowitz any day :lolflag:

[koenn]

imagine starving (Linux lacking some comparable software compared to Win & Mac), having someone deliver some hot, delicious meals to you (a company considering porting it's popular poprietary software to Linux) only to have one guy stand up, yell at the guy that offered you food, saying "We don't need your food!

so the guy that says "don't give them fish, teach them how to fish" is a radical who makes everyone look bad ?

[MCVenom]

so the guy that says "don't give them fish, teach them how to fish" is a radical who makes everyone look bad ?
Yes and no... I had just woke up, and that was a bad/unclear analogy.

I won't really try to defend it past pointing out at the time I was thinking 'Photoshop vs. GIMP'. GIMP is a great program, but many still consider it to be behind Photoshop. The idea was, the radical was turning away a polished and desired thing for what they already had. They can continue on with what they had; but they can grow with the offered option. :P

[koenn]

I won't really try to defend it past pointing out at the time I was thinking 'Photoshop vs. GIMP'. GIMP is a great program, but many still consider it to be behind Photoshop. The idea was, the radical was turning away a polished and desired thing for what they already had. They can continue on with what they had; but they can grow with the offered option.
You're comparing those programs on functionality. For the FSF and other free software aficionados , the licensing terms of a piece of software are equally, or more, important. Since, in their view, licensing terms are an important factor in the decision about which programs to use/promote/ ... I can understand that they' prefer, say, GIMP over Photoshop, It makes perfect sense.

[MCVenom]

You're comparing those programs on functionality. For the FSF and other free software aficionados , the licensing terms of a piece of software are equally, or more, important. Since, in their view, licensing terms are an important factor in the decision about which programs to use/promote/ ... I can understand that they' prefer, say, GIMP over Photoshop, It makes perfect sense.
Yes. But licensing terms won't convert the masses, that's my point.

[mickie.kext]

Yes. But licensing terms won't convert the masses, that's my point.

But convert them to what? If the only goal is to move people away from Windows, then you don't need GIMP nor Linux. There's OS X and it runs Photoshop.

But if the goal is deeper and more meaningful than just steering users away from Microsoft and directing them to other proprietary company, then something like "you install Linux and run photoshop under Wine" should not be advocated. If you need Photoshop and want to run it under Wine, on Linux, by all means do it. But when advocating the use of FOSS I never point out that people should just use same proprietary software on top of Linux. That defeats the purpose of it, and I very well understand why Stallman say "we should never ACK proprietary software as legitimate"

Think it this way: Does proprietary software ever advertise open source competition? No. And that is why proprietary (whether runs natively on Linux or under Wine) software shouldn't even get mentioned when making a case for moving to FLOSS.

If the user explicitly wants photoshop then I just say "there's Wine, it might work but it might just not".


So there is a difference: saying publicly that Photoshop is great and you use it, actually mean advocating for proprietary software. If you use it at home because you need it and not talking about it then you are not doing anything wrong because you are not luring more people into using it. It is not great for you that you use it, but if you need it you might not have a choice.

That is how I got RMS's message. I think those who are calling him extremist are not reading the message correctly.

As for pragmatism vs ideology, how about both (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html)?

[Nick_Jinn]

There's idealism, and there's pragmatism. I'd love to say that no one needs proprietary drivers, or non-free software but that's just not true for some, Linux just isn't there yet. Richard doesn't just hate proprietary software; he believes the mere mention of it legitimizes something he chooses to see as illegitimate. Worse is that he along with others believe that one piece of free software is not equal to another; Google 'Richard Stallman Planet Gnome'.

RMS does do harm with his words; imagine starving (Linux lacking some comparable software compared to Win & Mac), having someone deliver some hot, delicious meals to you (a company considering porting it's popular poprietary software to Linux) only to have one guy stand up, yell at the guy that offered you food, saying "We don't need your food! We'll make our own from twigs and rocks!" and maybe have one or two guys agreeing with him (RMS and other 'radicals'). It just makes us all look bad; and we're more often than not beggars rather than choosers. That's just one example though.

Once again, RMS (and other 'radicals') does, I believe serve a purpose; but they more often than not are sticking their noses too far into business they shouldn't be.

On that note, I'd take him over Schestowitz any day :lolflag:




I understand what you are saying.....and in this case I happen to disagree with him. I think that MORE proprietary drivers should be included UNTIL there is a suitable open source alternative....sometimes there isnt, like video codecs, so I think that where and when its legal to include these it should be done, proprietary or not. I prefer open source, but not when there isnt a comparable open source alternative that works comparably well.


So I flat out disagree with this guy, but I am yet to see an end user decide not to use linux because of something this guy said.....perhaps he pisses off a few companies and developers though.


Perhaps I am starting to see why some people around here are afraid of stepping on the toes of proprietyar companies....because there is already a lot of damage in relations and we are trying to cooperate to get support for linux.....but sometimes these corporations really do messed up things and I dont think we should stop people from talking about it or from expressing radical opinions.



But yeah, I disagree with Stallman here. I think the current system with all its copyrights SUCKS, and I would tear it down if I could, but we need to deal with reality and think about providing the best end user experience (or you are ultimately harming the future of open source by diminishing its user base, rather than helping it), and sometimes we need to cooperate with corporations rather than tear them down....but when there is an obvious issue of ethics, like peopled dying from lack of peer review, I dont think we need to stifle those discussions just because we are afraid to step on peoples toes.


/end rant

[phrostbyte]

I understand what you are saying.....and in this case I happen to disagree with him. I think that MORE proprietary drivers should be included UNTIL there is a suitable open source alternative....sometimes there isnt, like video codecs, so I think that where and when its legal to include these it should be done, proprietary or not. I prefer open source, but not when there isnt a comparable open source alternative that works comparably well.

The problem is once you start allowing proprietary drivers for some manufacturers, every other manufacturer is going to want to do it. And before you know it, Linux will become almost entirely proprietary. The only reason it isn't is because of GPL pressure and these so called "zealots" keeping the corporate world honest. It's not out of the kindness of their hearts, that's for sure.

[Nick_Jinn]

Well, its a trade off.

I think that when it comes to your hardware functioning properly, if your ATI graphics card doesnt work that is going to drive end users away more than its going to help further the cause of open source.....if we lost Nvidia, that would be terrible. In some cases I think that losing proprietary software for common hardware is more of a problem than it not being open source.

On the other hand, when it comes to optional software, I dont think we should bend over backwards for companies that dont support the open source movement.

I think that as the open source movement gets bigger we will have more and more developers to create open source alternatives. As we get those alternatives we can shave away the proprietary stuff.....but not being able to use your hardware is more likely to get people to give up on linux than it is likely to get people to go out and buy new linux and open source friendly hardware just to try a new OS that didnt work on the hardware they already had.


As far as Photoshop and those kinds of programs....I wouldnt bend over backwards to help sell their products by getting it to work with Wine. I think that effort is better spent improving the GIMP addons that help it replace photoshop, even if it wasnt originally meant to be a photoshop alternative....its probably the best working alternative that is the most ready to take its place with some adoptions.

[phrostbyte]

I would argue the total opposite, proprietary software in kernel space is much worse. It's not just a ethical concept, it's a technical/security issue. Drivers run in kernel space, so they can do pretty much whatever the hell they want to your system.

If a security vulnerability is found in a proprietary driver (not a impossible occurrence (http://download2.rapid7.com/r7-0025/)), the Linux kernel devs can not do anything about it. A kernel security vulnerability are among the most serious, they allow for "rootkits" to become present, which are types of malware that are extremely difficult to do anything about.

It's up to the vendor to fix. Don't assume they won't take their sweet time fixing it. What might take a few hours to fix might take a vendor several months to get to. Meanwhile your computer is wide open to any enterprising hax0r.

[Nick_Jinn]

That is a total reasonable argument......but you have to weigh that against people not being able to use Ubuntu at all due to lack of hardware support.

I think the current setup with proprietary drivers where you have to agree to isntall your Nvidia drivers works out ok. You can choose not to, but its at your fingertips rather than a console nightmare. People like it when things just work, which is why a lot of noobs are satisfied with mint when a small number are turned off by Ubuntu.....a lot of home users dont need invincible security...they have their family photos and stuff....I guess there is the issue of stored credit card information, but the internet is the biggest threat there, not the OS....With servers its an entirely different story. I guess thats why Mint is meant for end users only and Ubuntu is meant for end users as well as servers.

I havnt noticed any security problems using mint. It sure beats the hell out of windows.....I also like Ubuntu Studio and Ubuntu Ultimate. I always install medibuntu and whatever drivers I need to get the most out of my video card. I am primarily concerned with what works best for me in the moment, giving me the best performance, and while I am very interested in these more esoteric philosophical debates I dont feel that my personal boycott is going to get me very far, so I just use whatever is most convenient and offers the best performance for my hardware with the least amount of steps.


I think its cool that the purely open source distros exist for testing and working with purely open source models....I imagine it encourages innovation where Mint might encourage laziness in devs.....at the same time and OS like Mint might be bringing more linux users to the table than something difficult to use that lacks common codecs and drivers that people like.



Ubuntu takes a reasonable middle of the road approach. I pretty much like where they stand except I think medibuntu should be in multiverse. People install it anyway.






Ubuntu doesnt have a lot of bargaining power. If we decide to boycott a certain hardware manufacturing they could just laugh it off.....so far. Hopefully in the future we will have the bargaining power to negotiate.

[MCVenom]

But convert them to what? If the only goal is to move people away from Windows, then you don't need GIMP nor Linux. There's OS X and it runs Photoshop.

But if the goal is deeper and more meaningful than just steering users away from Microsoft and directing them to other proprietary company, then something like "you install Linux and run photoshop under Wine" should not be advocated. If you need Photoshop and want to run it under Wine, on Linux, by all means do it. But when advocating the use of FOSS I never point out that people should just use same proprietary software on top of Linux. That defeats the purpose of it, and I very well understand why Stallman say "we should never ACK proprietary software as legitimate"

Think it this way: Does proprietary software ever advertise open source competition? No. And that is why proprietary (whether runs natively on Linux or under Wine) software shouldn't even get mentioned when making a case for moving to FLOSS.

If the user explicitly wants photoshop then I just say "there's Wine, it might work but it might just not".


So there is a difference: saying publicly that Photoshop is great and you use it, actually mean advocating for proprietary software. If you use it at home because you need it and not talking about it then you are not doing anything wrong because you are not luring more people into using it. It is not great for you that you use it, but if you need it you might not have a choice.

That is how I got RMS's message. I think those who are calling him extremist are not reading the message correctly.

As for pragmatism vs ideology, how about both (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html)?
The way I look at things is this. You can educate people about open source. You could probably get them to see the benefits. Yes, I'm talking about the masses here; you could possibly convert most of them to open source. But we need baby steps; and I'd rather have them running some proprietary software on a libre OS than running only libre software on a proprietary OS. Getting someone to adopt libre software on the the OS that they're used to is easy (look at how Firefox has been adopted widely by users of all OSes, and OpenOffice.org).

Getting someone to adopt a different OS? That's hard. And it's made harder if there's a need the OS doesn't fill (some feature in an application, or games, or just working at all on the hardware it's installed on); but if the libre OS can do those things and is better than the alternatives (faster, safer, etc., even if proprietary software must be installed), people will switch to the libre OS.

Now, you have people running a free and open source OS. Now, if we focus more energy on making it so people are going to choose the libre software over the proprietary software, you could potentially wind up with something very good; many more people using only libre software; libre OS, libre programs. Which is undeniably a Good Thing, rather than having more people run libre programs on a proprietary platform that they're unwilling to leave (or that don't know about the alternatives; I knew a bit about GNU, GPL and open source myself back in my Windows days, but knew nothing of OSes beyond Windows and Mac).

[Nick_Jinn]

I agree with BlackOtaku. The masses are not looking to give up their favorite things to make the switch. Getting them to make the jump to linux is a big enough jump without people jumping down their throats for not already being purists.

I think the open source alternatives will quickly become popular enough, especially being free, as soon as they function well enough. We dont need to sniffle those programs for fear of them taking over. They wont. The open source programs can stand on their own two feet against them, except for a few rough edges that still need proprietary band aides.